Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds context beyond annotations: no authentication required, does not read or save account data. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false, so this reinforces rather than contradicts. Could disclose more about output interpretation, but the 'baseline not prescription' caveat is valuable behavioral guidance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences: what it does, safety/auth context, scope limitation, and decision guidance. Front-loaded with purpose, zero waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. Description covers purpose, safety, scope caveat, and usage context. Slightly richer guidance on interpreting results would complete it, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with units and field meanings fully documented. The description mentions camber and total toe conceptually but adds no unit or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('camber and total toe') and names the comparison targets ('autocross and track baseline ranges'). This distinguishes it from diagnostic siblings like diagnose_handling_issue and analyze_tire_temperatures.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly frames it as a baseline checker, not a vehicle-specific prescription, and notes that tire wear and driver feedback decide the next step. Implies when-not to over-rely on it, but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to use for vehicle-specific recommendations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.